Branded Flash Mobs

Branded Flash Mobs: Moving Toward a Deeper
Understanding of Consumers’ Responses to Video Advertising
Philip Grant
KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden; Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
Elsamari Botha
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden
Jan Kietzmann
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Ads are no longer unidirectional or one-dimensional but a
blend of offline and online techniques designed to directly interact
with the community. For many companies, advertising via online
platforms such as YouTube and Vimeo has replaced commercials
on television altogether. Recently, branded flash mobs have
emerged as a popular form of viral advertising. While many
branded flash mobs have experienced millions of YouTube views
a metric such as view count does not fully indicate the
effectiveness of the ad. This netnographic study evaluates
viewers’ attitude toward the ad to better understand the effects of
branded flash mobs. After examining 2,882 YouTube comments
from three virally successful branded flash mob ads, a typology is
developed, referred to as the archetype of consumer attitude
matrix, to enable academics to formulate research questions
regarding branded flash mobs. These archetypes of consumer
attitudes to the online ad, in this case branded flash mobs, aid in
the assessment of consumer response based on processing
(cognitive versus emotive) and stance (supportive versus
antagonistic). This typology also serves as a guide to marketing
managers in the use of branded flash mobs in their viral
campaigns. The article concludes with recommendations for
future research.
Keywords Aad, Ab, brand equity, branded flash mob, netnography
More and more companies are rethinking their approach to
advertising and consider investing in “the social” to leverage
the enormous power of social media (Kietzmann et al. 2011).
To shape consumers’ perceptions of brands and products, as
well as corporate reputations, advertisements are produced
with new media communications strategies in mind and
curated with the hope that they will be “voted up” by their con-
sumers and shared widely among their networks of friends,
colleagues, and followers. In pursuit of the elusive but much-
desired viral video, a particularly trendy form of interactive
advertising has recently emerged. Based largely on the success
of 2009 “T-Mobile Dance,” branded flash mobs continue to be
produced across the globe.
The T-Mobile branded flash mob was the first of its kind. It
was set at London’s busy Liverpool Station, where unexpect-
edly, one individual, waiting in the crowd, began dancing to
Lulu’s version of the Isley Brothers’ Shout, which was being
played on the station’s speaker system. Very quickly, other
onlookers joined in to perform a well-choreographed dance.
Two and a half minutes later, the performance stopped just as
unexpectedly as it started, with its several hundred performers
quickly dispersing and assuming their everyday lives. While
such a video, and even the performance itself, might appear
not just unusual but also possibly pointless at first, it has
enjoyed a spectacular success. The entire act was captured
with multiple cameras, edited, branded with the T-Mobile slo-
gan, logo, and brand sound bite, and then hosted on YouTube,
where it has amassed almost 40 million views and tens of thou-
sands of overwhelmingly positive comments. By the end of
2013 it ranked as the seventh-most-watched YouTube ad of all
time (Griner 2013). In an attempt to replicate T-Mobile’s suc-
cess, other companies have produced their own branded flash
mobs and, as exhibited in Table 1, have successfully used
branded flash mobs in their viral marketing campaigns.
Address correspondence to Philip Grant, Universidad de los
Andes, Calle 21 No. 1-20, Bogota, Colombia. E-mail: ps.
grant@uniandes.edu.co
Philip Grant (PhD, KTH-Royal Institute of Technology) is an
assistant professor, KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, Division of
Industrial Marketing, and Universidad de los Andes.
Elsamari Botha (PhD, KTH-Royal Institute of Technology) is a
senior lecturer, School of Management Studies, University of Cape
Town, South Africa, and KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, Divi-
sion of Industrial Marketing.
Jan Kietzmann (PhD, London School of Economics) is an associ-
ate professor, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University.
1
Journal of Interactive Advertising, 0(0), 1–15
Copyright Ó 2015, American Academy of Advertising
ISSN: 1525-2019 online
DOI: 10.1080/15252019.2015.1013229
Downloadedby[157.253.248.63]at12:0513April2015

While lots of YouTube views certainly indicate a video’s
popularity, fame does not automatically equate to an increase
in brand equity. Numbers do not tell the whole story; worse,
they could tell a wrong story. For instance, an online ad could
be “popular” because it is so poorly developed (e.g., Mountain
Dew’s “Felicia the Goat” attracted millions of views before it
was removed from YouTube for potentially being “the most
racist ad ever”; see Watkins 2013). Like sales, sharing inten-
tion (SI), purchase frequency (PF), click-through rates, and
other quantitative e-metrics, YouTube views do not provide
the firm with the attitudinal data, which is a major indicator of
the impact of an ad on brand equity (Shimp 1981). Further,
according to Chandon, Chtourou, and Fortin (2003) quantita-
tive e-metrics are poor indicators of online marketing success
because they suffer from “short-termism.” It is thus surprising
that the advertising literature does not yet provide tools to
examine the qualitative impact of online ads. This article
addresses this issue in two ways. First, a conceptual frame-
work is presented that provides a useful structure for research-
ers studying the influence of branded flash mobs on brand
equity; and second, an archetype for consumers’ response to
branded flash mobs is proposed to assist managers in the
development of their viral marketing campaigns.
Constructive evidence of the branded flash mob phenome-
non was offered by Grant (2014), who presented a seven-part
coding protocol content analysis revealing that 120 unique
companies have produced branded flash mobs, across more
than a dozen different industries from 26 separate countries.
Despite the growing significance of the phenomenon, the
impact of branded flash mobs on brand equity is not yet under-
stood. The need to understand it is further compounded when
considering the production costs of branded flash mobs, illus-
trated by a report that L.A.-based Flash Mob America has
charged up to $80,000 to produce a branded flash mob (Freund
2013). Jeffry Pilcher (2011), of The Financial Brand, esti-
mated that the Wells Fargo flash mob cost $250,000. Without
understanding how branded flash mob videos impact brand
equity, marketers may potentially waste resources and/or miss
opportunities to develop the brand relationship. Therefore, this
exploratory article seeks an answer to the following research
question: How do viewers respond to branded flash mobs?
This issue is investigated by studying 2,882 YouTube com-
ments from three virally successful branded flash mobs. Anal-
ysis of YouTube comments provide implicit knowledge about
users, videos, categories, and community interests (Siersdorfer
et al. 2010) and can be mined for positive, negative, and neu-
tral sentiments, which helps marketers understand and enhance
viewers’ experiences (Olubolu et al. 2012).
Following a brief review of the extant literature on branded
flash mobs, a conceptual framework for the study of branded
flash mobs’ impact on brand equity is proposed. Thereafter,
the various outcomes that these ads could impose on viewers’
attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand are dis-
cussed. Finally, the cases studied are presented, and these
branded flash mob videos posted to the Internet as interactive
ads are classified in the given conceptual framework. Since
social-interactive engagement (online discussions) has its own
impact on advertising effectiveness (Calder, Malthouse, and
Schaedel 2009) the data will be presented through a netno-
graphic examination of YouTube comments. After analyzing
these comments, a typology of four consumer attitudes toward
branded flash mobs is proposed. Built on ad processing (cogni-
tive versus emotive) and stance (supportive versus antagonis-
tic) constructs, these archetypes of consumer attitudes to the
online ad aid in the assessment of consumer response. Each
construct on its own has validity and a history in the marketing
literature and, when mapped together, provides a new frame-
work with which marketers and managers can examine the
relationship between branded flash mobs and brand equity,
ultimately assisting marketing managers in the formulation of
their viral marketing campaigns. Following the discussion of
the findings, concluding remarks and future research sugges-
tions are provided. First, however, we start with a discussion
of viral marketing in general.
TABLE 1
One Million YouTube Hit Club: Top 10
Rank YouTube Video Name Sponsor Views
1 The T-Mobile Dance T-Mobile 39,953,793
2 Hallelujah Chorus Alphabet Photography 37,439,849
3 A Dramatic Surprise on a Quiet Street TNT TV 34,504,965
4 T-Mobile Wedding Dance T-Mobile 25,922,759
5 Sound of Music VTM 24,317,870
6 Black-Eyed Peas—“I Got a Feeling” Oprah 22,303,350
7 Michael Jackson Dance Tribute Bounce 16,674,119
8 The T-Mobile Welcome Back T-Mobile 14,044,792
9 Glee— Il Flashmob Fox 9,374,096
10 Beyonce 100 Single Ladies Flash-Dance Trident 9,505,099
2 P. GRANT ET AL.

LITERATURE REVIEW
With consumers’ increased resistance to traditional forms
of advertising, marketers have turned to creative strategies to
reach consumers, including viral marketing (Leskovec,
Adamic, and Huberman, 2007). Viral marketing is defined as
“eWOM [electronic word of mouth] whereby some form of
marketing message related to a company, brand or product is
transmitted in an exponentially growing way—often through
the use of social media” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2011, p. 255).
Viral marketing also refers to strategies that allow an easier,
accelerated, and cost-reduced transmission of messages by
creating environments for the exponential self-replication of
marketing messages (Welker 2002 in Golan and Zaidner
2008). Viral marketing is certainly one of the key trends in
marketing today (Cruz and Fill 2008; Ferguson 2008); how-
ever, because consumers are bombarded with a massive
amount of online content each day, companies are forced to
use increasingly creative strategies to get their videos to go
viral. Recently, the phenomenon of branding flash mobs has
helped some companies get noticed.
FLASH MOBS
In 2004, the term flash mob was added to the Oxford
English Dictionary, with the following definition: “a public
gathering of complete strangers, organized via the Internet or
mobile phone, who perform a pointless act and then disperse
again.” They are organized events “occurring within a defined
space, which is attended by a large number of people. .. not
dependent on the reason for the gathering” (Zeitz et al. 2009,
p. 32). Flash mobs can involve hundreds of performers or only
a few, who may or may not know one another prior to the flash
mob. The performers are usually brand supporters, but in some
cases are paid performers (Grant, 2014). A “call to action” pre-
cludes every flash mob performance, where participants are
summoned via Facebook, Twitter, websites, e-mail, text mes-
sages, or blogs, and are given “secret” pieces of information
such as date, location, and specific performance instructions.
Branded flash mobs are similar to unbranded flash mobs, in
that they embody many of the joyous and seemingly spontane-
ous elements, including choreographed dancing (e.g., BMW’s
“Greased Lightning”), singing (Opera Company of Phila-
delphia’s “Random Act of Culture”), and even kissing (Lynx
Attract’s “Chaos on the Buses”). The most glaring difference
between the two types is the presence of branding, which is
designed to raise awareness and increase the equity of a brand.
Unsurprisingly, branded flash mobs have more at stake, espe-
cially since these live performances are usually recorded and
shared online by bystanders, regardless of whether they were
good or bad. As a result, firms must plan, execute, and market
flash mobs differently. Producers must consider logistical ele-
ments, such as obtaining insurances and permits, creating the
appropriate content and strategy to ensure the logical brand to
flash mob relationship (e.g., a pillow-fight flash mob at a
mattress store), practicing routines to perfection, and control-
ling for production quality. As the stakes go up, there is less
room for error, which is compounded by the need to get it
done on time and within budget. For example, the “T-Mobile
Dance” (produced by Saatchi and Saatchi) required eight
weeks of planning by a production team of 14. Preproduction
elements included combing a reported 10,000 auditions to find
400 dancers, a secret 1 a.m. dress rehearsal, and storyboarding
for 10 hidden video cameras (MacLeod 2009).
Akin to guerrilla marketing campaigns, branded flash mobs
are intended to draw a large audience’s attention to the brand
at comparatively little cost. They are designed to engage with
consumers and/or the media by evoking both a surprise effect
and a diffusion effect in their advertising message (Hutter and
Hoffman 2011). As a form of content marketing, online
branded flash mob adverts have the potential to enhance con-
sumer arousal, create a positive influence on pleasure (Grant,
Bal, and Parent 2012), increase consumer interest and brand
exposure (Ay, Aytekin, and Nardali 2010), drive consumers’
purchase intention (Huang et al. 2012), and provide a more
targeted acquisition of new customers (Tsimonis and Dimitria-
dis 2014). Branded flash mobs ads, like Tic Tac’s “La Pire
Haleine du Monde” (5.5 million views), have the potential to
help companies develop brand equity by positioning their
brands, changing their image, and developing a brand relation-
ship (Freund 2013).
How these advertisements contribute to brand equity can be
best understood when examined through the lens of two con-
structs—Attitude toward the Ad (Aad) and Attitude toward the
Brand (Ab)—because viewers respond to either the ad or the
perceived brand (Zinkhan and Burton 1989; MacInnis and
Jaworski 1989). As exhibited in Figure 1, this article posits
that these constructs mediate the relationships between
branded flash mobs and brand equity. The conceptual frame-
work illustrates that branded flash mobs, like other ads, influ-
ence brand equity, and that this relationship is mediated by
both consumers’ attitude toward the ad and their attitude
toward the brand. These are positive mediators such that the
more positive consumers’ attitude toward the ad and brand,
the greater the effect that the branded flash mob will have on
brand equity. Consumers’ attitude toward the ad and their atti-
tude toward the brand also interact with one each other and are
not autonomous variables. These relationships are now dis-
cussed in greater depth in the following sections.
FIG. 1. Conceptual model.
BRANDED FLASH MOBS 3

BRAND EQUITY AND VIEWER RESPONSE TO
ADVERTISING
Ultimately, marketing managers produce branded flash
mobs to positively influence brand equity. This relationship,
however, is fully mediated by consumers’ attitude toward the
ad and their attitude toward the brand (Gardner 1985; Homer
1990). After discussing brand equity, these two constructs are
discussed in turn and their relationship to brand equity fully
explicated. Finally, there are several examples in the literature
where the study of consumer attitudes has been extended to
some variation of “for” or “against” (Batra and Ray 1986; Ber-
thon, Pitt, and Campbell 2008; Campbell et al. 2011). This
topic will be covered in brief as well.
Brand Equity
Brand equity (BE) has been defined as “outcomes that
accrue to a product with its brand name compared with those
that would accrue if the same product did not have the brand
name¨ (Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin 2003, p. 1), and
according to Berthon, Holbrook, and Hulbert (2003) it stems
from the interactivity between consumers and the company,
which leads to the consumer developing cognitions and feel-
ings toward the brand.
The extant advertising literature has studied brand equity
from two points of view: financial value and customer value.
Brand equity from a financial value perspective refers to the
financial value of well-known brands, like Coca-Cola and
KFC, compared to lesser-known competing brands. Though
most traditional marketing strategies aim to create financial
value for the firm, marketers must first establish and under-
stand the underlying attitudinal factors so that the marketing
outcome for the brand is positive. From a customer value
perspective, customer-driven brand equity is built when the
brand becomes unique and memorable, is perceived as supe-
rior in quality and reputation to its competitors, and can be
distinguished in two dimensions: “brand awareness level”
and “brand image level” (Keller 1993). Brand image, here,
applies to the strength of the perceptions around a brand,
while brand awareness refers to the degree of brand recogni-
tion and brand recall performance. This perspective is impor-
tant to examine because it suggests specific guidelines for
marketing strategies and assists in managerial decision mak-
ing (Keller, 1993).
To examine the relationship between branded flash mobs
and brand equity, a brief summary of Aad and Ab literature is
provided. The link between both of these constructs to the
components of brand equity is rooted in multiple prior research
streams, discussed in the following sections.
Attitude Toward the Ad
Many scholars have used Shimp’s Aad construct (1981) to
study the impact of the ad on customer-driven brand equity
(Burke and Edell 1987; Gardner 1985; Holbrook and Batra
1987). This construct has two discrete processing mechanisms:
cognitive and affective (Shimp 1981). To understand ad
response through the cognitive approach, customers con-
sciously seek consistency between the values and beliefs of
the ad and their own (Greenwald 1968). Research aimed at the
relationship between cognitive processing and brand equity
continues to be guided by the elaboration likelihood model
(ELM) (Petty and Cacioppo 1986) and the heuristic-systematic
model (HSM) (Chaiken, Liberman, and Eagly 1989). These
theories examine persuasion variables, processes, and out-
comes of cognitive processing (Petty, Wegener, and Fabrigar
1997).
While the cognitive elements in the Aad discussion have
historically garnered little dispute, academics have not yet
agreed on how to define or measure affect (Poels and Dewitte
2006). According to Shimp (1981) understanding ad effective-
ness through the lens of Aad also requires examination of
affective reactions to the ad. Authors frequently reference feel-
ings, emotions, attitude, arousal, and mood in an ad hoc man-
ner as the term applies to their study (Muehling and McCann
1993). Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer (1999) consider affect an
umbrella term for the general category of which these psycho-
logical processes are subsumed. This study used Phelps and
Thorson’s (1991) conceptual definition of affect, which they
loosely define as “a viewer’s general liking or disliking of an
advertisement” (p. 202).
Scholars have proposed many varying typologies of
affective responses to advertising (Aaker, Stayman, and
Hagerty 1986; Batra and Ray 1986; Burke and Edell 1987;
see also Gardner 1985) designed to help marketers create
advertising strategies that target specific feelings, as
opposed to a general emotional state. Holbrook and Batra
(1987) developed a typology of affective responses to
advertising to understand and measure how different types
of feelings work. Watson and Tellegen’s (1985) two-factor
structure of affect, which measures affect on two continua
(positive versus negative and high versus low activation),
has been widely used in the literature (e.g., see Pugh 2001;
Gountas, Ewing, and Gountas 2007; Johnson 2008). Other
scholars sought to develop instruments that could gauge
affective reactions to ads, such as Schlinger’s (1979)
Viewer Response Profile; Wells’s (1975) Reaction Profile;
and MacInnis and Jaworski’s (1989) cognitive and emo-
tional response generated from ad processing framework.
Furthering the work by psychologist Richard Lazarus
(1991), who posited that emotions must have some cogni-
tive intentionality, Poels and Dewitte (2006) proposed the
emotional continuum, which spans a range of processing
from lower-order emotions such as pleasure and arousal, to
higher-order, complex responses, which require cognitive
processing and self-regulative responses. This continuum is
especially useful for this study as it allows us to capture
the full range of affective and cognitive responses as
4 P. GRANT ET AL.

consequences of ad processing and antecedents of brand
equity.
While Petty, Wegener, and Fabrigar (1997) recommend
measuring cognitive and affective responses separately, sev-
eral advertising planning models integrate them. The popular
hierarchy of effects model (Preston and Thorson 1984) argues
that the viewer’s exposure to the ad induces a cognitive
response, and that response creates an affective response,
which then generates action. Similarly, the current study
viewed cognitive and affective processing as opposing parts
on the same continuum. As consumers watch viral videos, the
video triggers some degree of cognitive or affective processing
in the viewer that affects both their attitude toward the ad and
their attitude toward the brand.
Attitude Toward the Brand
Attitude toward the Brand is also a well-documented medi-
ator of brand equity and requires close examination (e.g.,
Homer 1990; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986; Mitchell and
Olson 1981). This construct attempts to assess the change in
consumer attitudes toward the advertised brand. According to
Shimp (1981), a positive brand attitude change will likely lead
to an increase in brand equity. While Muehling and McCann
(1993) found more than 100 single component segment stud-
ies, Gresham and colleagues (1984) suggested that a global
attitude measure would be the most useful measure for evalu-
ating ad effectiveness. In response, the FCB grid (Vaughn
1986) and the Rossiter-Percy grid (Rossiter, Percy, and Dono-
van 1991) both integrate “feel/think” processing mechanisms
with a low/high consumer involvement dimension as an ante-
cedent of brand attitude change.
Since Mitchell and Olson (1981) empirically substanti-
ated the mediating effects of Aad on Ab, several additional
models of attitude toward the ad have been built to explain
how Aad mediates the relationship between antecedent var-
iables related to advertising outcomes. For example,
Shimp’s affect transfer hypothesis (1981) posits a direct
effect from Aad to Ab. The dual mediation hypothesis
(Lutz and Swasy 1977) postulates that Aad has a unidimen-
sional relationship on Ab and an indirect effect on Ab,
mediated by brand cognition. The reciprocal mediation
hypothesis (RMH) (Heider 1946) posits a reflective rela-
tionship between Aad and Ab. Finally, Howard’s (1977)
independent influences hypothesis states there is no causal
relationship between Aad and Ab but instead claims Aad is
an independent determinant of purchase intention. Huang
and colleagues (2012), in turn, found that in an online set-
ting the Aad–Ab relationship has a positive reciprocal rela-
tionship, with causation flowing in both directions.
To understand the relationship between the ad stimulus, in
this case branded flash mobs, and brand equity, the causal
model proposed by Heider (1946) is used. In RMH, Heider
(1946) states there is a reciprocal mediation relationship
between these two variables. According to Calder and col-
leagues (1981), it is acceptable to employ such a theoretical
framework to identify and measure relationships such as the
ones laid out herein, provided that it is the effects of theoretical
frameworks that are generalized rather than the outcomes of
the study themselves. In other words, as mediators, Aad and
Ab are applicable and valid constructs with which to examine
branded flash mobs because theoretical explication can allow
researchers to verify and replicate previous research within
different contexts (Chaffee 1996).
Supportive and Antagonistic Attitudes
The support an ad receives is also an important topic for
understanding interactive advertising (Batra and Ray 1986;
Berthon, Pitt, and Campbell 2008; Campbell et al. 2011). Fol-
lowing exposure to an online video advertisement, people will
form a positive or negative attitude toward the video and then
decide to share or not share the video with others (Dobele
et al. 2007; Botha and Reyneke 2013).
Only when people have a strong affective response to the
video content, such as humor, fear, sadness, or inspiration,
will they be willing to forward it to others (Berger and Milk-
man 2010, 2012; Huang et al., 2012). Branded flash mobs
have proven to elicit a heightened affective response in con-
sumers and have a proven record to be successful virally
(Grant, Bal, and Parent 2012). Botha and Reyneke (2013) add
that marketers must pay attention to the affective reaction
online viewers have to the ad because viewers who feel no
emotion when watching a video are unlikely to share it. Simi-
larly, viewers are more likely to share the video if they have a
supportive, as opposed to antagonistic, response to the brand.
Using branded flash mobs in viral marketing campaigns
could assist marketing managers in eliciting stronger support-
ive emotional responses in viewers, which could, in turn, moti-
vate them to share these videos in their social networks. At the
same time, there have also been many branded flash mobs that
have not motivated viewers to share. To the authors’ knowl-
edge at this time, no studies to date attempt to better under-
stand consumers’ response to branded flash mob ads.
Therefore, examinations of ad responses are necessary to bet-
ter understand how online ads influence consumers’ attitude
toward the brand. This study attempts to better understand
consumers’ response to these ads in an attempt to assist mar-
keters in the use of branded flash mobs in their viral cam-
paigns. To do this, comments about successful viral videos are
examined. These unfiltered responses present great opportuni-
ties for marketers to understand consumers’ attitude toward an
online video ad; they also provide deeper insight into this
mode of communication. This feedback allows marketers to
adjust their advertising messages and improve their customer
support, product line, and services provided (Pavlou and Stew-
art 2000).

BRANDED FLASH MOBS AS INTERACTIVE
ADVERTISING
Previous research has shown that YouTube comments are a
keen lens through which to study consumer attitudes (Botha,
2014b). Before moving to examine the discourse around
branded flash mobs it is prudent to first establish them as ads
and validate the advertising medium, namely the relationship
between traditional advertising literature and the modern set-
ting online. Following is a description of three virally success-
ful branded flash mobs videos used as examples to explicate
the framework proposed.
Case 1: Wells Fargo NYC Flash Mob Surprises Times
Square
The Wells Fargo flash mob (https://www.youtube.com/
watch?vDxjG9ggZmttk), which takes place in New York’s
Times Square, represents the 2008 acquisition of Wachovia by
Wells Fargo. The flash mob begins with several drummers
drumming on the sidewalk. While this may not appear to be an
uncommon occurrence in New York, one minute into the event
several audience members remove their jackets, revealing
matching hoodies, and begin to dance in unison. The hoodies
are unbranded but are the distinct blue and green shades used
by Wachovia. This is important because the dancers eventually
remove the hoodies to reveal unbranded red T-shirts in the
shade used by Wells Fargo. At the three minutes and one sec-
ond in, the Wells Fargo logo fades in at the bottom left corner
of the video. At the end of the video, the Wachovia logo is
shown, but it quickly turns into the Wells Fargo.
Case 2: Miku—Compact Flash Mob (Toyota)
In 2011, Toyota built an ad campaign for the Toyota
Corolla that was endorsed by Japanese pop star Hatsune Miku.
Set in New York City, this campaign, which consisted of sev-
eral online and offline initiatives, was aimed squarely at Asian
Americans (Read 2011). Like most flash mobs, this one starts
with one person dancing to Miku’s hit song “The World Is
Mine” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?vD cqLBfm58R_Y).
Within a minute the dancer is joined by 20 others who, en
masse, remove their sweaters to reveal the Toyota Corolla T-
shirts they are wearing underneath. The dance was choreo-
graphed to the official dance moves that one would see in a
live Miku concert. After the song ends the dancers put their
sweaters back on and disperse nonchalantly. The video’s final
10 seconds show the Toyota logo and website address while
the sound of people clapping and cheering fades away.
Case 3: HM Kids Fashion Flash Mob
Set in San Francisco, this ad (https://www.youtube.com/
watch?vDFqTEkVR2ZeU) begins with a trademark cable car
passing an HM store. Switching to Union Square, a
competitive hip-hop “dance-off” between two kids attracts the
attention of the audience. The kids are dancing to a live bongo
drummer. Momentarily, this music is replaced by a recording
of the hip-hop song called “Set It Off” by Izza Kizza, and 50
other dancers then join the two children. This song choice is
important because the chorus is contains the phrase “check me
out.” After the flash mob ends, the video displays the company
logo, contact details, and the call to action “Check us out!”
Elements of Flash Mob Ads
Advertising scholars have agreed that television ads possess
the follow common elements: product attributes, consequences
of use, and demonstration of satisfaction of personal values
(Kamakura and Novak 1992; Vriens and Hofstede 2000), and
are communicated through a message or means which leads
the consumer to a desired end state (Gutman 1982). While the
branded flash mob videos described here do not demonstrate
the aforementioned elements, they are clearly relative to new-
media advertising narratives, such as branded entertainment,
which is defined as “the integration of advertising into enter-
tainment content, whereby brands are embedded into story-
lines of a film, television program, or other entertainment
medium” (Hudson and Hudson 2006, p. 492) or product place-
ment theory (Karrh 1998), which describes the use of brand
components in entertainment media programming for com-
mercial purposes.
Each flash mob has strong and unmistakable features of the
sponsoring brand, but interestingly they employ varying
degrees of branding. For example, the Toyota ad showed the
brand logo throughout (on the performers’ T-shirts). On the
other hand, the ad, which Toyota called “Miku—Compact
Flash Mob,” was the only one that did not include the name of
the company in the title. This may indicate an intention to hide
the brand behind the endorsed celebrity Miku. Conversely, the
Wells Fargo ad did not show its logo to the live audience but
instead subtly dressed its performers in company colors. Wells
Fargo further demonstrated a reserve toward overbranding by
using a small transparent watermarking of their logo in the
bottom left of the video, which is revealed halfway through
the ad. HM did not brand its live event either but was the
most specific when it came to naming the YouTube ad
(“HM Kids Fashion Flash Mob”). It also had an explicit call
to action (“Check us out!”) at the end of its video, whereas the
Wells Fargo and Toyota ads simply showed the company logo
as the video faded to black. Therefore, branded flash mobs are
indeed a form of commercial advertisement. This is anec-
dotally supported by 373 viewer comments (13%) that referred
to the video as an ad (e.g., “I think this was the most epic com-
mercial I’ve ever seen . . . but I still don’t want Wachovia’s
service”).
If one can accept that videos of branded flash mobs are in
fact ads, then the medium through which the ads are being pro-
moted needs to be qualified. A 2012 survey by Web Video
6 P. GRANT ET AL.

Marketing Council and Flimp Media reported that 81% of
marketers use online video in their advertising efforts, 88% of
which reported a positive impact on the brand. Akin to tradi-
tional advertising mediums, academics are currently develop-
ing new tools to measure the efficacy of interactive advertising
(Murdough 2009), as well as seeking to understand the effec-
tiveness of it (Yoo, Kihan, and Stout 2004; Manchanda et al.
2006).
Interactive advertising involves the same mechanisms and
human processing as traditional advertising (Rodgers and
Thorson 2000; Huang et al. 2012), as online video advertising
involves dispatching video-based communications through
interactive, network-based channels. Huang and colleagues
(2012) also found empirical evidence that attitudes toward the
viral (online) video advertisement (Av) influence the forma-
tion of Ab in ways that are similar to the traditional Aad con-
struct. These findings are important to this study because there
is a lack of tools in the literature to measure customer-driven
value of brand equity in the online space. To explore consumer
responses to online branded flash mobs, a market-oriented net-
nographic study was used. The following section discusses the
methodology used in greater detail.
METHODOLOGY
Online advertising is no longer unidirectional and passively
consumed but offers consumers various degrees of interactiv-
ity, interoperability and cocreation opportunities (Campbell
et al. 2011). Furthermore, the Internet offers consumers many
different social media platforms, such as Reddit, Facebook,
and/or blogs, to discuss ads. Hidden behind avatars and user
names, consumers are free to voice their opinions of ads, how-
ever positive or negative those opinions may be. Indeed, brand
managers have less control over the conversations around their
brand than ever before.
Through online conversations, blogs, and posts, the Internet
has given market researchers deeper insights into individual
consumer behavior (Jones 1999). These qualitative data allow
researchers to take a more exploratory look at the relationship
between consumers and brands (Churchill and Iacobucci
2009; Malhotra 2010). Exploratory research designs are most
appropriate when a research question is relatively unexplored
and the researchers do not have an idea of what the possible
answer to a research question might be (Malhotra 2010). The
qualitative research method deemed most appropriate for the
research question asked in this study was netnography.
Netnography
Netnography, or ethnography on the Internet, is an online
marketing research technique that provides insights into the
consumer community through the study of contextualized data
(Kozinets 2002). Based primarily on the analysis of textual
discourse, this interpretive method allowed us to gather and
manage the netnographic data and then analyze and interpret
it. Examination of the textual discourse in this manner is less
intrusive than ethnography or focus groups and more naturalis-
tic than surveys or other quantitative methods (Kozinets 2002).
Uncovering shared norms and values in online communities,
which may be then categorized, is also an inherent benefit of
netnography.
The process of netnography research stems from three basic
steps: (1) the selection of a suitable website and appropriate
discourse (in this case, comments from YouTube); (2) data
collection; and finally (3) analysis (Kozinets, 2002). To under-
stand viewers’ attitudes toward branded flash mob ads, 2,882
YouTube comments from three branded flash mobs ads were
examined. As per Kozinets (2002), netnographic coding
involves both data analysis and a data interpretation process
(Spiggle 1994). Each ad chosen for this study provided a satis-
factory richness of discourse (Calder 1977) and was selected
on the following criteria:
1. It was perceived as an advertisement (as some companies
are less explicit in their branding).
2. The video had a high YouTube view count (because
branded flash mobs with low view counts are not likely to
have comments that are rich in diversity or quantity).
3. There were a relatively large number of viewer comments
about the advertisement, and these comments represent dis-
cussion and debate.
4. There was a significant variation in the types of comments
determined by the attitude of the viewer.
5. The comments represented a diverse set of voices, deter-
mined by the demographic and a large data set of both
“likes” and “dislikes” of the video.
6. There were different degrees of visible branding.
7. Each ad represented a different industry and targeted differ-
ent demographics.
As summarized in Table 2, the ads selected for analysis were
“Wells Fargo NYC Flash Mob Surprises Times Square,”
“HM Kids Fashion Flash Mob,” and “Miku—Compact Flash
Mob (Toyota).” First, all textual information from individual
comments were copied directly from YouTube into a text doc-
ument. This produced considerable data for each ad. To under-
stand viewers’ judgments, perceptions, and experiences, these
comments were carefully prepared, coded, and interpreted by
using an inductive reasoning approach, by which the com-
ments were unitized by expression of themes and categories
(Minichiello et al. 1990). Aligned with the methodology out-
lined by Kozinets (2002), the netnographic data in each cate-
gory were compared to the data with other events coded as
belonging to the same category, inquiring into their similarities
and differences. Each author first analyzed and coded each
data set independently, and then all findings were collated
through a constant and reiterative comparative analysis (Ragin
1987). The coding scheme was then tested on a sample of text

until sufficient coding clarity and consistency was achieved
(Weber 1990). Finally, the study was completely observa-
tional, since the researchers’ identities were not revealed to
the community, nor did they actively participate in the
conversation.
FINDINGS
Advertising literature provides scant optimization strategies
regarding how to use offline branded entertainment videos as
ads in social networking environments. Understanding viewer
response surely moves us in that right direction. The findings
are structured in two steps. First, viewers’ responses to the
branded flash mobs are unpacked, and then a typology of con-
sumer attitudes that emerged from the discourse analysis is
presented.
Discourse Analysis
In analyzing the comments of these three videos, it was
clear that there was a difference in how viewers process
branded flash mobs, what the target of their comments was,
and their degree of support for each of these elements. In terms
of how viewers processed branded flash mobs, the analysis and
interpretation of the textual discourse for all three videos
resulted in the grouping of several terms from which five main
themes emerged (Table 3); (1) general affective response, (2)
the perceived sponsoring brand, (3) the commercial, (4) the
people in the ad, and (5) the performance. The first theme
identified is Affect. The 10 most frequently found affective
words were, in order, Love (Fun), Cool, Awesome, Amazing,
“Feel Bad” (Empathy), Wow, Disgust(ed), Lol, Happy, and
subtle derivatives of the word Anger (Disgust, Annoyed/ing).
According to Gresham and Shimp (1985), affect generated by
commercials influences attitude toward the advertised brands.
Therefore, to find meaning and gain insight into the data, Poels
and Dewitte’s (2006) emotional continuum is used.
When a person views an ad, he or she is faced with the deci-
sion of accepting or rejecting the persuasion attempt, which is
consciously or unconsciously processed by relating the ad to
existing values, beliefs, knowledge, and feelings (Friestad and
Wright 1994; Greenwald 1968). The emotional continuum
shows that consumers’ response to ads ranges from lower-order
emotions (for example, pleasure and arousal) to higher-order
emotions (such as distrust) Some viewers expressed warm senti-
ments (lower-order emotions) toward the video, for example,
“Wow! Guaranteed Goosebumps!!” (Wells Fargo), while others
critically analyzed the information in the video with higher-order
emotions: “Kids shouldn’t be shaking their booties like that”
(HM). Being satisfied that at least a cursory understanding of
how the consumer was processing the ad was gained, the second
step was to understand the target of viewers’ response.
Consistent with the research of Zinkhan and Burton (1989)
and MacInnis and Jaworski (1989), the study revealed two
major targets for consumer response: (1) reaction to the ad,
which in this study refers to comments about the commercial,
the people in it, or the performance; and (2) reactions to the
perceived brand and closely associated brand terms (e.g.,
money associated with Wells Fargo). Interestingly, despite
Toyota’s efforts, there is a secondary commentary around
celebrity endorser Miku, which confused many viewers
regarding who and what the ad is promoting. For example, one
viewer commented: “I like Miku, but not with Toyota promot-
ing it in the US.” Another commenter responded: “Exactly,
I’m not all that thrilled with Toyota promoting Miku in the
US.” This confusion is likely due to the lack of apparent
TABLE 2
YouTube Summary Statistics
Rank Flash Mob Title Upload Date Views Likes Dislikes Comments
1 Wells Fargo NYC Flash Mob Surprises Times Square April 12, 2011 2,573,256 3,665 488 444
2 Miku-Compact Flash Mob (Toyota) June 6, 2011 381,657 3,267 253 1,593
3 HM Kids Fashion Flash Mob March 28, 2010 9213,229 3,412 151 845
TABLE 3
Discourse Analysis: Themes and Terms
Theme Terms Comments Comment Target
Affect Amazing, Anger, Awesome, Cool, Disgust, Fun, Lol, Love, Wow 552 Ad/Brand
Commercial Commercial, flash mobs, paid, song, video 299 Ad
People America(n), Culture, Kids, Japan, People 625 Ad
Performance Dance(rs), Perform(ers) 705 Ad
Brand Bank, Money, Car, Clothes, Miku, Toyota, HM, Wells Fargo 591 Brand
8 P. GRANT ET AL.

product attributes or demonstration of product use, low level
of congruence with personal values, as well as the prominent
setting of Miku in the ad.
Finally, there was a difference in viewers’ degree of support
to the videos. Although the majority of the comments about
the ad were positive, which is consistent with the expectation
of virally successful videos, closer examination of the dis-
course reveals that other viewers took an antithetical stance.
While most responses to the ad were supportive (84%), (e.g.,
“Great commercial!”—Wells Fargo ad), others demonstrated
an antagonistic attitude (e.g., “Imagination Needed”—Toyota
ad). These opposing elements are closely aligned with Batra
and Ray’s (1986) continuum of ad responses, in which
responses range from Source Bolstering to Source Derogation,
both of which require an understanding because support of the
ad is a vital element for the ad to gain acceptance (Batra and
Ray 1986).
The type of processing, the target of the response, and the
degree of support remain abstract concepts that can be empow-
ering when mapped together. Synthesizing these continua
simultaneously in a matrix helps us best understand the per-
ceived effects of the branded flash mob video and leads to the
development of the Archetypes of Consumer Attitudes toward
Branded Flash Mob Videos Matrix.
Archetypes of Consumer Attitudes Toward Branded Flash
Mob Videos
Based on the processing mechanism and the degree of sup-
port the viewer has for the branded flash mob, a 2 £ 2 matrix
of four viewer archetypes emerged (Figure 2). Typologies
such as this allow us to classify responses based on similar fea-
tures, are effective at illustrating the differences in the
responses, and are common in the advertising literature
(Campbell et al. 2011). Specifically, the following viewer atti-
tudes toward the ad or toward the brand emerged: (1) cognitive
and antagonistic (“Righteous Ronnie”), (2) cognitive and sup-
portive (“Up and Adam”), (3) affective and supportive
(“Happy Jack”), and (4) affective and antagonistic (“Debbie
Downer”). Each of these archetypical positions possesses an
inherent dissonance with the other archetypes and is now dis-
cussed in turn.
“Up and Adam” (cognitive and supportive). Viewers in
the first archetype, referred to as “Up and Adam,” rely heavily
on cognitive processing to arrive at an attitudinal position
toward the ad. Cognitive processing is suggested when the
viewer develops an attitudinal position by forming evaluative
mental responses such as opinions, thoughts, and learning
(Greenwald 1968). According to Wright (1973), viewers will
be supportive in their cognitive response in cases where they
have congruent associations with the information in the ad, or
the ad supports already entrenched beliefs. Further, viewer
support of the brand or brand initiative is a vital element for
the ad to gain acceptance. Comments of this category
expressed their support with cognitively processed comments
such as:
One of the best ads I’ve seen on Youtube [sic]. And I actually
watched the whole thing instead of moving on to the video I wanted
to see. Hopefully more ads will follow suit and attempt to entertain
us instead of just push their name around. (HM)
Other examples include:
I am now very convinced to shop at HM if these kids are repre-
senting them!
Great job from Wells Fargo Marketing.
Great idea Toyota . . . keep on advertising Miku publically [sic] and
I will buy the Corolla!
Good for Toyota for trying new stuff.
FIG. 2. Archetypes of Consumer Attitudes Toward Branded Flash Mob Videos Matrix.

While these consumers are supportive of the brand, they have
a cognitive response to the ad and are therefore less likely to
share the video in their online social networks than those who
had an emotive response to the ad. Viewers who have emotive
responses to viral ads are more likely to share content with
their online social networks (Berger and Milkman 2010, 2012;
Dobele et al. 2007).
“Righteous Ronnie” (cognitive and antagonistic). Hidden
behind YouTube’s privacy policies, consumers like
“Righteous Ronnie” can critically analyze the ad or brand and
safely dispute the persuasion attempt. This type of viewer
posts unsupportive responses and has a quality of being mor-
ally right or justified. Because these viewers are typically the
ones to post negative comments, they are also likely to post
this content to their online social networks to share their social
commentary. Righteous Ronnies might assist in making the
video go viral at the expense of the brand or company. Return-
ing to the work of Wright (1973), if the viewer becomes an
active information processor, he can be expected to have one
of two types of negative responses. The first response is a
counterargument, which occurs when the ad presents informa-
tion that is oppositional to the viewer’s ethics or principles.
An example of a counterargument toward the ad can be drawn
from the HM flash mob, where one Righteous Ronnie
posted:
Flash mobs should not be abused for commercial advertising [sic].
Real flash mobs are uncommercial, spontaneous and mostly unor-
ganized. This is more like viral marketing because it has a sublimi-
nal message (“look, all our clothes are from HM”).
The second response type is source derogation, which is a
negative response focused on the brand rather than the ad con-
tent. As exemplified by the following reactions:
Flash Mobs are great fun, but they totally lose their charm when
they are Corporate Sponsored—Yes, I’m talking to you, Wells
Fargo!”
Thanks HM for showing us how “awesome” your brand is!
PATHETIC.
Another example, stated more explicitly, comes from a viewer
who wrote, “Curse u toyota! advertise better!” At times, view-
ers posted comments that involved both counterargument and
source derogation components. As evidence, one viewer
posted: “NOT a flash mob; a cheap way to get international
attention for Wells Fargo.”
The next set of comments examines consumers who used
affective processes to express their support or antagonism
toward the branded flash mob.
“Happy Jack” (affective and supportive). Generating
affect is one of the key aims of marketers. Ads that connect
emotionally can influence information processing, mediate
responses to persuasive appeals, measure the effects of
marketing stimuli, initiate goal setting, enact goal-directed
behavior, and serve as ends and measures of consumer welfare
(Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer 1999). Moreover, an increase in
affect toward an ad has been proven to influence beliefs about
the brand (Phelps and Thorson 1991) and create positive brand
equity (Prevot 2009). “Happy Jack” represents the viewer who
had a sympathetic response to the ad. That is, the ad did not
oppose the values or beliefs but instead left the viewer with a
feeling of approval. Comments typical of this type of view
include the following:
“i luv [sic] this ad so much, ive [sic] put it in my favourites and if
im [sic] feelin down i just watch it and it makes me smile.” (Wells
Fargo)
“i love love love this—what a great marketing idea!” (HM)
“Amazing i was so excited throughout the whole video and even
got shiver. i really liked this idea. HM really nailed it!”
“Love how you’re using Miku as like the mascot for the car.”
(Toyota)
These consumers or viewers are very likely to share these
videos with their online social networks because they had a
positive emotional response to the ads and are supportive of
the brands. Therefore, both the intrapersonal (emotional) and
interpersonal (social) motivations for sharing online content
(Botha 2014a) are met, making the videos more likely to go
viral at the hands of these consumers.
“Debbie Downer” (affective and antagonistic). The last
archetype is referred to as “Debbie Downer.” She is the viewer
type who reports various negative, and antagonistic feelings
(antipathy) and aversion toward the ad or brand. Burke and
Edell (1987) found that negative feelings elicited by an adver-
tisement should be treated separately from positive responses.
Soon thereafter, the researchers empirically confirmed that
negative feelings affect brand equity negatively and there is no
balancing influence to offset the effects generated by these
negative emotions (Burke and Edell 1987). Debbie Downer’s
comments ranged from mildly disappointed to angry. Exam-
ples of some such comments include the following:
Wells Fargo, you are SO not cool.
The worst Flash Mob ever, boring as hell!!!!! (Wells Fargo)
WF need to learn how Flash Mobs work. (Wells Fargo)
I hate to see children performin[sic] such sexually provocative
dance moves, especially in what is nothing more than an advert.
(HM)
I feel kind of angry that Toyota is using Miku to sell cars.
10 P. GRANT ET AL.

Although Debbie Downer might not convert to be a brand sup-
porter, online video advertising has the potential to develop
relationships between the brand and an online network. Huang
and colleagues (2012) found that provocative ads (e.g., sex,
violence) may increase an ad’s likelihood of being shared, but
they also warn that these types of ads may decrease purchase
intention and brand equity. Although branded flash mobs are
generally not offensive, marketers must still recognize the
potential for backlash, as in the HM Kids flash mob, which
received many negative comments about the impropriety of
children doing sexually suggestive dances.
DISCUSSION
Establishing an Archetypes of Consumer Attitudes
Matrix from this research provides marketers with insight
into how consumers respond to branded flash mobs, as
well as how to possibly target the most “attractive” con-
sumers within each segment. Much of the recent interactive
advertising literature indicates ads that elicit pleasant feel-
ings impact the brand more than negative, neutral, or infor-
mational ads do. Pham, Geuens, and De Pelsmacker (2012)
found this to be true regardless of the product category or
its relevance in a consumer’s day-to-day life. Emotionally
captivating ads can also positively influence brand attitude
change. Hence, marketers should generally try to improve
the emotional appeal of their advertising. In other words,
they should funnel their efforts into creating Happy Jacks.
For example, while viewers’ cognitive support of Up and
Adam is vital for the ad to gain acceptance, and even use-
ful for managers who aim to increase brand awareness or
product knowledge, the impact of evaluative responses
does not significantly impact brand equity because it sim-
ply affirms existing beliefs (Batra and Ray 1986). There-
fore, positive affective inducing elements should be
included in the branded flash mob ad to develop the brand
relationship. Branded flash mobs that successfully target
these consumers are more likely to become viral. They are
also more likely to have the biggest influence on brand
equity by influencing the viewers’ image of the company/
brand, and possibly their loyalty to the company/brand.
The effect of branded flash mobs on Debbie Downers
and Righteous Ronnies is more obvious but also more diffi-
cult to explain. To mitigate negative brand equity effects,
marketers must be aware of the risks and challenges when
constructing a flash mob marketing campaign. For exam-
ple, viewers have an aversion toward corporate viral mar-
keting attempts (Fournier and Avery 2011). In addition, the
marketer must be careful not to leave the audience feeling
exploited or cheated (Dobele, Toleman, and Beverland
2005). Ethical standards must be also observed (Kaikati
and Kaikati 2004), and the persuasion attempt must not
invade privacy (Phelps et al. 2004). A negative backlash
may generate a negative brand image or product or service
boycott (Phelps et al. 2004). The relationship between neg-
ative cognitive responses and the influence that these
responses have on viewers forwarding the content (i.e., the
content becoming viral) is not clear. Previous empirical
studies disagree about whether there is a difference
between the spread of positive versus negative content and
whether negative emotional responses to content lead to
the sharing of such content in the same way that positive
emotional responses do. What is certain, however, is that
both Debbie Downers and Righteous Ronnies can have
serious adverse effects on a company or brand’s reputation.
Recent empirical research by Romani, Grappi, and Dalli
(2012) can be used to better understand Debbie Downer.
Romani, Grappi, and Dalli (2012) produced a scale that
includes six distinct negative affective responses to the ad:
Anger, Dislike, Discontent, Embarrassment, Sadness, and
Worry. They found that, by focusing on these emotions
separately, marketers could assemble new insights into the
attitude of the consumer because each negative emotion
has differing negative effects on the brand. For example,
worry about brands usually leads to switching. Feelings of
sadness or discontent are similar in that they cause the
viewer to withdraw from the brand, with no desire to rees-
tablish a positive relationship with the brand. Embarrass-
ment also elicits passivity in consumers and inhibits
complaining. Conversely, anger and dislike elicit various
types of adverse active responses (e.g., complaining or pro-
testing). Understanding these negative responses to the ad
is the key to avoiding a decrease in brand equity, as
the knowledge helps marketers develop appropriate
countermeasures.
Appropriate strategies are also needed to avoid any trouble
from Righteous Ronnie, because these videos might also
become viral but for the wrong reasons. Since cognitive proc-
essing leads to more effective actions (Gigerenzer and Gold-
stein 1996) it is plausible Ronnie would respond by switching
or withdrawing, but more likely he would complain or protest.
It is also possible that Ronnies might partake in indirect
revenge (Gregoire, Laufer, and Tripp 2010), causing harm to
the company’s reputation. In this way, Righteous Ronnie can
both directly and indirectly negatively affect the brand.
Finally, Righteous Ronnie is the most resistant to brand atti-
tude change because cognitive bias supersedes affect in coping
with the persuasion attempt (Friestad and Wright 1994).
Therefore, Righteous Ronnie might be forwarding the branded
flash mob to social media sites only to illustrate and comment
on existing views that his network already possesses (some-
what softening the blow to the brand). For the same reasons,
the negative emotional response that Debbie Downer has to
the branded flash mob has the potential to be much more dam-
aging to the brand and/or the company’s reputation.
Managers must know that all branded flash mobs will get
responses from all four of the consumer archetypes because of
the exponential spread of viral videos. Therefore, a full

spectrum approach to ad planning is therefore needed. Manag-
ers must carefully plan the event with a focus on the desired
affective and cognitive response. This awareness is important
as it may inform better planning toward how to encourage
sharing (virality) and increasing brand equity. To that end,
marketers should test the effects of the branded flash mob
video before posting the video to YouTube to ensure that the
outcome is aligned with management objectives. Marketers
can then prepare their response to the various consumer arche-
types and determine whether the benefits reaped from Happy
Jack and Up and Adam outweigh the damage that Righteous
Ronnie and Debbie Downer might do.
Limitations
While the goal of this study was to categorize branded
flash mob videos as online ads and provide a conceptual
framework with which to assess and manage consumer atti-
tudinal responses, there remain a few limitations with the
research design that should be considered. First, while the
chosen methodology (netnography) is rigorous and more
clearly defined than other forms of online ethnography
(Kozinets 2002), this study also narrowly focused on a spe-
cific online community. Therefore, future research should
test and develop these findings by examining branded flash
mob videos using different methodologies, such as focus
groups and in-depth interviews. Second, because each
video studied was quite different in its composition, a close
examination of the videos themselves would be useful in
understanding the ad–viewer–brand relationship. Possible
questions for future research include examining how much
branding is in the video, when does it appear, and what is
the peak and duration of the video, as well as a test of the
flash mob and brand fit. Third, the findings of this work
are based on testing a single unit of analysis. Future stud-
ies should also examine other forms of branded entertain-
ment as well as other platforms to validate and extend this
research. Finally, the usual issues associated with qualita-
tive research, including limited generalizability and repre-
sentativeness of the sample (Malhotra 2010), are
applicable. Thus, empirical research is needed to address
these shortcomings and provide marketers with a quantifi-
able way to measure the impact of branded flash mobs on
brand equity.
Conclusion
In today’s age of “big data,” where managers and research-
ers want to know “how much,” “how often,” and “how many,”
understanding effectiveness through a quantitative lens
appears to be extremely important. Fortunately, these data
have become particularly easy for online video advertisers to
capture. For example, ads on YouTube can record watch time
and postexposure search queries, cookies, and log files as
metrics for assessing success (Pashkevich et al. 2012). Online
video advertising researchers also have access to some impor-
tant new tools of measurement, including views, click-
throughs, time spent at websites, exploration patterns, and pat-
terns of online purchasing. However, according to Deighton
and Kornfeld (2009), information works at cross-purpose with
meaning, leaving one quickly confronted with massive data
from which little sense can be made. Thus, the goal of this
study was to move toward a deeper understanding of consum-
ers’ response to these online ads to help marketing managers
formulate viral campaigns.
As the branded flash mob phenomenon evolves, astute and
creative marketers will continue to look for ways to leverage
this ad type in an effort to create value for the firm. As such,
the results of this research give rise to a number of theoretical
contributions, as well as several managerial implications, to
consider when constructing a viral video campaign using
branded flash mobs. First, this work successfully establishes
that consumers perceive branded flash mobs as online com-
mercials. Second, the development of the Archetypes of Con-
sumer Attitudes Matrix has successfully added to the body of
interactive advertising, in that conversations around the ad
and/or the brand, which can vary from supportive to antagonis-
tic, can be realized through both affective and cognitive proc-
essing. Ultimately, this research helps establish that branded
flash mobs can be used in viral marketing campaigns as a
means to encourage an emotional response to the video and
engender a supportive attitude toward both the ad and the
brand, to facilitate the online sharing of the video. The more
these two behaviors are enforced, the greater the likelihood
that these videos will be shared with consumers’ online social
networks.
We believe that branded flash mobs are premovement.
Recently, Belgium’s TNT-TV produced a video to advertise
the launch of a new high-quality TV station. The ad, titled “A
Dramatic Surprise on a Quiet Square” (http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v D 316AzLYfAzw), begins by showing a quiet
square in an average Flemish town (Aarshot, pop. 28,000)
with a sign hovering over a button that reads “PUSH TO ADD
DRAMA.” After a curious passer-by bravely pushes the but-
ton, a full-scale Hollywood action scene ensues, with dramatic
twists and turns that are both thrilling and shocking. With
more than 35 million views in the first two months, the video
became the second-most-shared ad of all time (after
Volkswagen’s Super Bowl ad “The Force”). The advertise-
ment, which Savage (2012) calls a “flash mob type thing,” has
many branded flash mob elements: It takes place in a public
space; is presented to an unsuspecting public; and at the end
the performers disperse, leaving the scene as still and peaceful
as when they arrived. TNT has clearly pushed limits of what a
branded flash mob is. But it’s not yet clear where branded
entertainment is headed. As Web Pro News recently asked,
“Does the new TNT video successfully reinvent the ‘flash
mob’ advertising formula? Does it work as a new take on the
12 P. GRANT ET AL.

format made popular by T-Mobile, amongst others?” (Wolford
2012). As the branded ﬂash mob phenomenon continues to
evolve, future research is needed.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D., D. Stayman, and M. Hagerty (1986), “Warmth in Advertising: Mea-
surement, Impact and Sequence Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research,
12 (4), 365–81.
Ailawadi, K.L., Lehmann, D.R. Neslin, S.A. (2003), “Revenue premium as
an outcome measure of brand equity,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (4), 1–17.
Ay, C., P. Aytekin, and S. Nardali (2010), “Guerilla marketing communication
tools and ethical problems in guerrilla advertising,” American Journal of
Economics and Business Administration, 2, 280–86.
Bagozzi, R., M. Gopinath, and P. Nyer (1999), “The Role of Emotions in Mar-
keting,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2 (27), 184–206.
Batra, R., and M. Ray (1986), “Affective Responses Mediating Acceptance of
Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (2), 234–48.
Berger, J., and K. Milkman (2010), Social Transmission, Emotion, and the Vir-
ality of Online Content, Wharton Research Paper, Philadelphia, PA.
———, and ——— (2012), “What makes online content viral?,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 49 (2), 192–205.
Berthon, P., M. Holbrook, and J.M. Hulbert (2003), “Understanding and Man-
aging the Brand Space,” Sloan Management Review, 44 (2), 49–54.
———, L. Pitt, and C. Campbell (2008), “Ad Lib: When Customers Create the
Ad,” California Management Review, 50 (4), 6–30.
Botha, E. (2014a), “Contagious Communications: The Role of Emotion in
Viral Marketing,” doctoral thesis. KTH-Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden.
——— (2014b), “A Means to an End: Using Political Satire to Go Viral,”
Public Relations Review, 40 (2), 363–74.
———, and M. Reyneke (2013), “To Share or Not to Share: The Role of Con-
tent and Emotion in Viral Marketing,” Journal of Public Affairs, (13) 2,
160–71.
Burke, M., and J. Edell (1987), “The Impact of Feelings on Ad Based Affect
and Cognition,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (1), 69–83.
Calder, B. (1977), “Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Research,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3), 353–64.
Calder, B., E. Malthouse, and U. Schaedel (2009), “An Experimental Study of
the Relationship Between Online Engagement and Advertising
Effectiveness,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (4), 321–31.
Calder, B., J. Lynn, W. Phillips, and A. Tybout (1981), “Designing Research
for Application,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (2), 197–207.
Campbell, C., L. Pitt, M. Parent, and P. Berthon (2011), “Understanding Con-
sumer Conversations Around Ads in a Web 2.0 World,” Journal of Adver-
tising, 40 (1), 87–102.
Chaffee, S.H. (1996), “Thinking About Theory,” in An Integrated Approach to
Communication Theory and Research, M.B. Salwen and D.W. Stacks,
eds., Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 15–32.
Chaiken, S., A. Liberman, and A. Eagly (1989), “Heuristic and Systematic
Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context,” in Unintended
Thought, J.S. Uleman and J.A. Bargh, eds., New York: Guilford Press,
212–52.
Chandon, J.L., M.S. Chtourou, and D.R. Fortin (2003), “Effects of Conﬁgura-
tion and Exposure Levels on Responses to Web Advertisements,” Journal
of Advertising Research, 43 (2), 217–29.
Churchill, G.A., and D. Iacobucci (2009), Marketing Research: Methodologi-
cal Foundations, Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Cruz, D., and C. Fill (2008), “Evaluating Viral Marketing: Isolating the Key
Criteria,” Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 26 (7), 743–58.
Deighton, J., and L. Kornfeld (2009), “Interactivity’s Unanticipated Conse-
quences for Marketers and Marketing,” Journal of Interactive Marketing,
23 (1), 4–10.
Dobele, A., A. Lindgreen, M. Beverland, J. Vanhamme, and R. van Wijk
(2007), “Why Pass On Viral Messages? Because They Connect
Emotionally,” Business Horizons, 50 (4), 291–304.
Dobele, A., D. Toleman, and M. Beverland (2005), “Controlled Infection!
Spreading the Brand Message Through Viral Marketing,” Business Hori-
zons, 48 (2), 143–49.
Ferguson, R. (2008), “Word of Mouth and Viral Marketing: Taking the Tem-
perature of the Hottest Trends in Marketing,” Journal of Consumer Mar-
keting, 25 (3), 179–82.
Fournier, S., and J. Avery (2011), “The Uninvited Brand,” Business Horizons,
54 (3), 193–207.
Freund, L. (2013), “Spontaneity for Hire: Flash Mobs Go Corporate,” Wall
Street Journal, May 8, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/
SB10001424127887323798104578453172650031706.
Friestad, M., and P. Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How
People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research,
21 (1), 1–31.
Gardner, M.P. (1985), “Advertising Effects on Attributes Recalled and Criteria
Used for Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (3), 310–18.
Gigerenzer, G., and D. Goldstein (1996), “Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way:
Models of Bounded Rationality,” Psychological Review, 103 (4), 650–69.
Golan, G.J., and L. Zaidner (2008), “Creative Strategies in Viral Advertising:
An Application of Taylor’s Six-Segment Message Strategy Wheel,” Jour-
nal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (4), 959–72.
Gountas, S., M. Ewing, and J.I. Gountas (2007), “Testing Airline Passengers’
Responses to Flight Attendants’ Expressive Displays: The Effects of Posi-
tive Affect,” Journal of Business Research, 60 (1), 81–83.
Grant, P. (2014), “Understanding Branded Flash Mobs: The Nature of the Con-
cept, Stakeholder Motivations, and Avenues for Future Research,” Journal
of Marketing Communications, doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.875930
Grant, P.S., A. Bal, and M. Parent (2012), “Operatic Flash Mob: Consumer
Arousal, Connectedness, and Emotion,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
11 (3), 244–51.
Greenwald, A. (1968), “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persua-
sion, and Attitude Change,” in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, A.
G. Greenwald, T.C. Brock, and T.M. Ostrom, eds., New York: Academic
Press, 147–70.
Gregoire, Y., D. Laufer, and T.M. Tripp (2010), “A Comprehensive Model of
Customer Direct and Indirect Retaliation: Understanding the Effects of
Perceived Greed and Customer Power,” Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, 38, 738–58.
Gresham, L. Bush, A., and Davis, R. (1984), “Measures of brand attitude: Are
cognitive structure approaches really needed?,” Journal of Business
Research, 12, 353–61.
Gresham, L.G., and T.A. Shimp (1985), “Attitude Toward the Advertisement
and Brand Attitudes: A Classical Conditioning Perspective,” Journal of
Advertising, 14 (1), 10–49.
Griner, D. (2013), “The 20 Most-Watched Ads Ever on YouTube,” Adweek,
http://www.adweek.com/news-gallery/advertising-branding/20-most-
watched-ads-ever-youtube-142275#t-mobile-dance-7.
Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on consumer categoriza-
tion processes,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (2), 60–72.
Heider, F. (1946), “Attitudes and cognitive organization,” Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 21, 107–12.
Holbrook, M., and R. Batra (1987), “Assessing the Role of Emotions as Medi-
ators of Consumer Responses to Advertising,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (3), 404–20.
Homer, P.M. (1990), “The Mediating Role of Attitude Toward the Ad: Some
Additional Evidence,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (1),78–86.
Howard, J. A. (1977), Consumer behavior: Application of theory, New York:
McGraw Hill.
Huang, J., S. Song, L. Zhou, and X. Liu (2012), “Attitude Toward the Viral
Ad: Expanding Traditional Advertising Models to Interactive
Advertising,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27 (1), 36–46.

Hudson, S., and D. Hudson (2006), “Branded Entertainment: A New Advertis-
ing Technique or Product Placement in Disguise?,” Journal of Marketing
Management, 22 (5), 489–504.
Hutter, K., and S. Hoffman (2011), “Guerrilla Marketing: The Nature of the
Concept and Propositions for Further Research,” Asian Journal of Market-
ing, 5 (2), 39–54.
Johnson, S.K. (2008), “I Second That Emotion: Effects of Emotional Conta-
gion and Affect at Work on Leader and Follower Outcomes,” Leadership
Quarterly, 19 (1), 1–19.
Jones, S. (1999), Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for
Examining the Net. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaikati, A.M., and J.G. Kaikati (2004), “Stealth Marketing: How to Reach
Consumers Surreptitiously,” California Management Review, 46 (4), 6–22.
Kamakura, W.A., and J.A. Mazzon (1991), “Value Segmentation: A Model for
the Measurement of Values and Value Systems,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 18 (2), 208–19.
———, and T. P. Novak (1992), “Value-system segmentation: Exploring the
meaning of LOV,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1), 119–32.
Kaplan, A.M., and M. Haenlein (2011), “Two Hearts in Three-Quarter Time:
How to Waltz the Social Media/Viral Marketing Dance,” Business Hori-
zons, 54 (3), 253–63.
Karrh, J. A. (1998), “Why (some) brand placements are effective: Insights
from impression management research,” Proceedings of the Conference of
the American Academy of Advertising, D. D. Muehling, ed., Pullman, WA:
American Academy of Advertising, 306.
Keller, K. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-
Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1–22.
Kietzmann, J.H., K. Hermkens, I.P. McCarthy, and B.S. Silvestre (2011),
“Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building
Blocks of Social Media,” Business Horizons, 54 (3), 241–51.
Kozinets, R. (2002), “The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for
Marketing Research in Online Communities,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 39 (1), 61–72.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and adaptation, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Leskovec, J., L.A. Adamic, and B.A. Huberman (2007), “The Dynamics of
Viral Marketing,” ACM Transactions on the Web, 1 (1), art. 5,
doi:10.1145/1232722.1232727
Lutz, R.J., and Swasy, J. (1977), “Integrating Cognitive Structure and Cogni-
tive Response Approaches to Monitoring Communication Effects,” in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, W.D. Perreault, Jr., ed., Atlanta,
GA: Association for Consumer Research, 363–71.
MacInnis, D.J., and B. Jaworski (1989), “Information Processing from Adver-
tisements: Toward an Integrative Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 53
(4), 1–23.
MacKenzie, S.B., R.J. Lutz, and G.E. Belch (1986), “The Role of Attitude
Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Com-
peting Explanations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (2),130–43.
MacLeod, D. (2009), “T-Mobile Dance Flashmob in London,” Inspiration
Room, January 23, http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2009/t-mobile-
dance-flashmob-in-london/.
Malhotra, N. (2010), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 6th ed.,
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Manchanda, P., J. Dube, K. Goh, and P. Chintagunta (2006), “The Effect of
Banner Advertising on Internet Purchasing,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 43 (1), 98–108.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E. and Alexander, L. (1990), In-Depth
Interviewing: Researching People. Hong Kong: Longman Cheshire.
Mitchell, A.A., and J.C. Olson (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only
Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 18 (3), 318–32.
Muehling, D., and M. McCann (1993), “Attitude Toward the Ad: A
Review,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 15 (2),
25–58.
Murdough, C. (2009), “Social Media Measurement,” Journal of Interactive
Olubolu, O., S. Saadat, M. Alhashmi, and E. Siew (2012), “Sentiment Analysis
Amidst Ambiguities in YouTube Comments on Yoruba Language (Nolly-
wood) Movies,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference Com-
panion on World Wide Web (WWW ‘12 Companion), New York, NY, 583–
84.
Pashkevich, M., D. Sundar, M. Kellar, and D. Zigmond (2012), “Empowering
Online Advertisements by Empowering Viewers with the Right to Choose:
The Relative Effectiveness of Skippable Video Advertisements on
YouTube,” Journal of Advertising Research, 52 (4), 451–57.
Pavlou, P., and D. Stewart (2000), “Measuring the Effects and Effectiveness of
Interactive Advertising: A Research Agenda,” Journal of Interactive
Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo. J.T. (1986), Communication and persuasion: Cen-
tral and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R.E., D.T. Wegener, and L.R. Fabrigar (1997), “Attitudes and Attitude
Change,” Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609–47.
Pham, M.T., M. Geuens, and P. De Pelsmacker (2013), “The Influence of Ad-
Evoked Feelings on Brand Evaluations: Empirical Generalizations from
Consumer Responses to More Than 1000 TV Commercials,” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 30 (4), 383–94.
Phelps, J., R. Lewis, L. Mobilio, and N. Raman (2004), “Viral Marketing or
Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses
and Motivations to Pass Along Email,” Journal of Advertising Research,
44 (4), 333–48.
Phelps, J., and E. Thorson (1991), “Brand Familiarity and Product Involve-
ment Effects on Attitude Toward an Ad-Brand Attitude Relationship,”
Advances in Consumer Research, 21 (3), 19–36.
Pilcher, J. (2011), “Wells Fargo ‘Flash Mob’ Yields 1 Million Youtube
Views,” The Financial Brand, May 9, http://thefinancialbrand.com/18345/
wells-fargo-times-square-flash-mob-video/.
Poels, K., and S. Dewitte (2006), “How to Capture the Heart? Reviewing 20
Years of Emotion Measurement in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 46 (1), 18–37.
Preston, I., and E. Thorson (1984), “The Expanded Association Model: Keep-
ing the Hierarchy Concept Alive,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24
(1), 59–65.
Prevot, A. (2009), “The Effects of Guerrilla Marketing on Brand Equity,” Con-
sortium Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13 (2), 33–40.
Pugh, S.D. (2001), “Service with a Smile: Emotional Contagion in the Service
Encounter,” Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 1018–27.
Ragin, C. (1987), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and
Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Read, R. (2011), “2011 Toyota Corolla Fans Love Virtual Pop Star Hatsune
Miku,” Motor Authority, September 15, http://www.motorauthority.com/
news/1066199_2011-toyota-corolla-fans-love-virtual-pop-star-hatsune-
miku.
Rodgers, S., and E. Thorson (2000), “The Interactive Advertising Model: How
Users Perceive and Process Online Ads,” Journal of Interactive Advertis-
ing, 1 (1), 42–61.
Romani, S., S. Grappi, and D. Dalli (2012), “Emotions That Drive Consumers
Away from Brands: Measuring Negative Emotions Toward Brands and
Their Behavioural Effects,” International Journal of Research in Market-
ing, 29 (1), 55–67.
Rossiter, J.R., L. Percy, and R.J. Donovan (1991), “A Better Advertising Plan-
ning Grid,” Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (5), 11–21.
Savage, L. (2012), “Awesome Surprise Flash Mob Type Thing in Belgium,”
Life Is Savage, April 12, http://lifeissavage.com/2012/04/12/awesome-sur
prise-flash-mob-type-thing-in-belgium-video/.
Schlinger, M.J. (1979), “A Profile of Responses to Commercials,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 19 (2), 37–46.
Shimp, T.A. (1981), “Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer
Brand Choice,” Journal of Advertising, 10 (2), 9–15.
14 P. GRANT ET AL.

Siersdorfer, S., S. Chelaru, W. Nejdl, and J. San Pedro (2010), “How Useful
Are Your Comments? Analyzing and Predicting YouTube Comments
and Comment Ratings,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Confer-
ence on World Wide Web (WWW ‘10 Companion), New York, NY,
891–900.
Spiggle, S. (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Con-
sumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 491–503.
T-Mobile. (2009), “T-Mobile Dance,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=VQ3d3KigPQM.
Tsimonis, G., and S. Dimitriadis (2014), “Brand Strategies in Social Media,”
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 32 (3), 328–44.
Vaughn, R. (1986), “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 26 (1), 59–66.
Vriens, M., and F.T. Hofstede (2000), “Linking Attributes, Beneﬁts, and Con-
sumer Values,” Marketing Research, 12 (3), 4–10.
Watkins, B. (2013), “Mountain Dew Releases Arguably the Most Racist Com-
mercial in History,” Your Black World, http://www.yourblackworld.net/
2013/04/black-news/mountain-dew-releases-arguably-the-most-racist-com
mercial-in-history/.
Watson, D., and A. Tellegen (1985), “Toward a Consensual Structure of
Mood,” Psychological Bulletin, 98 (2), 219–35.
Web Video Marketing Council and Flimp Media (2012), “2012 Online Video
Marketing Survey and Video Email Trends Report,” http://www.webvideo
marketing.org/pdf/2012%20Online%20Video%20Marketing%20Survey%
20Report.pdf.
Weber, R.P. (1990), Basic Content Analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wells, W. (1975), “Psychographics: A Critical Review,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 12, 196–213.
Wolford, J. (2012), “Awesome Viral Ad Livens Up Peaceful European Town,”
Web Pro News, April 11, http://www.webpronews.com/push-red-button-
add-drama-tnt-ad-2012-04.
Wright, P.L. (1973), “The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of
Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (1), 53–62.
Yoo, C., K. Kihan, and P. Stout (2004), “Assessing the Effects of Animation in
Online Banner Advertising: Hierarchy of Effects Model,” Journal of Inter-
active Advertising, 4 (2), 49–60.
Zeitz, K., H. Tan, M. Grief, P.C. Couns, and C. Zeitz (2009), “Crowd Behav-
iour at Mass Gatherings: A Literature Review,” Prehospital and Disaster
Medicine, 24 (1), 32–38.
Zinkhan, G., and S. Burton (1989), “An Examination of Three Multidimen-
sional Proﬁles for Assessing Consumer Reactions to Advertisements,”
Journal of Advertising, 18 (4), 6–14.

Branded Flash Mobs

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Branded Flash Mobs

More from Simon Fraser University

Recently uploaded

Branded Flash Mobs